Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Suman Sharma vs Union Of India And Others on 22 July, 2008
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Ajay Tewari
CWP No. 14322 of 2005 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 14322 of 2005
Date of Decision: 22.7.2008
Sukhdev Suman Sharma .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Shri R.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the
respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') on 14.7.2005, whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (for short `the Act') was dismissed.
A requisition was issued by the respondents for filling up of the post of senior clerk against 13-1/3% quota from amongst the graduates serving clerks. It is the case of the petitioner that the appointment to the post of senior clerk is to be made by way of promotion and therefore, the seniority in the feeder cadre is required to be maintained, whereas he has not been assigned such seniority and, therefore, the action of the respondents is not justified.
The Tribunal rejected the said application filed by CWP No. 14322 of 2005 (2) the petitioner in limine primarily on the ground that 13-1/3% of the vacancies are to be filled up from amongst the clerks already serving in the department by way of a direct recruitment. The merit list was prepared of all those, who were declared successful. The inter-se seniority of the candidates as clerks, has no relevance for the determination of the seniority on the basis of competitive examination and thus, finding no merit in the Original Application, the same was dismissed.
Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon para No. 315 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, to contend that the petitioner was promoted to the post of senior clerk and, therefore, the seniority of the feeder cadre is required to be maintained. Reference was also made to Rule 174 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I, wherein 13-1/3% of posts are contemplated to be filled up through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short `the LDCE') from amongst the serving graduates working as clerks through the agency of Railway Recruitment Board.
In the written statement filed, it was pointed out that in the year 2002, applications were invited by the Railway Recruitment Board from amongst the serving graduates working as clerks in the Grade of Rs.3050-4590/- for appointment against 13- 1/3% of Senior Clerk-cum-Typist in the grade of Rs.4500-7000/-. Out of the total applications received, 17 graduates in-service clerks were found eligible. A written test was conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board and the petitioner along with the other successful candidates was found suitable for the post of senior clerk against 13-1/3% quota of serving graduates and was placed at serial No. 7 in the merit list. Thereafter, after passing the typing test, the petitioner was appointed on 8.12.2003. It is also pointed out that in CWP No. 14322 of 2005 (3) terms of Rule 174 of the IREM, 20% of the vacancies of the senior clerks are to be filled by way of direct recruitment from amongst the graduates in the age group of 18-35 years through the agency of Railway Recruitment Board and remaining 13-1/3% through LDCE from amongst he serving graduates working as clerks. The relevant extracts from the said rule 174(b) reads as under:-
"33-1/3% of the vacancies in the grade of Sr. Clerks in scale of Rs.1200-2040 will be filled as under:-
i) 20% by direct recruitment of graduates in the age group of 18 to 25 years through the agency of the Railway Recruitment Boards; and
ii) 13-1/3% through a limited Departmental competitive examination from amongst serving graduates working as Clerks in scale of Rs.950-1500 through the agency of the Railway Recruitment Boards. Shortfall, if any, against this quota will be added to direct recruitment quota at (4) (i) above."
It was thus, averred that the petitioner was appointed against the direct recruitment quota meant for in service candidates. It was also pointed out that para No. 315 relied upon by the petitioner is applicable only to those cases, where the Railway servant became eligible for promotion in their due turn and clear the examination/test, which is a precondition for promotion. Therefore, it is pointed out that para No. 315 of the Manual is not relevant in the present case.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The petitioner was appointed against a quota meant for direct recruitment. The appointment was against a direct recruitment quota meant for in- service candidates. Therefore, the seniority of the feeder cadre is not relevant. The same has been correctly determined on the basis of the CWP No. 14322 of 2005 (4) LDCE meant for the in-service candidates. Para No. 315 of the Manual, deals with the seniority of the candidates on promotions being made on due turn and where the promotions are subject to the pre-condition of test. The present one is not a case of promotion, but is a case of direct recruitment on the basis of LDCE and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim seniority on the basis of seniority in the feeder cadre.
In view of the above, we do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE 22-07-2008 ds